Is there any problem, besides Frequ. res., obviously, with loading a driver in a smaller-than-optimal enclosure tuned to the recommonded frequency? I'd like to get a smaller box at the expense of some LF, but I'm wondering if there are other compromises......
What gives?
Thanks,
-fortyquid
Speed speller ;-)
What gives?
Thanks,
-fortyquid
Speed speller ;-)
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pi/messages/2062.html
if the box is too small it will be overdamped(a good thing sound quality wise)
ports will be longer also
if the box is too small it will be overdamped(a good thing sound quality wise)
ports will be longer also
Hi,
I think you'll get a more lumpy response, more output (from humped response), and I think you get more power handling in smaller boxes too. I think using a too small box is why many commercial subs sound a bit crap. Smaller cab. means there'll be less to resonate I suppose, which is of course good. And easier to build. Also, I think group delay is worse/different with size.
-Simon
I think you'll get a more lumpy response, more output (from humped response), and I think you get more power handling in smaller boxes too. I think using a too small box is why many commercial subs sound a bit crap. Smaller cab. means there'll be less to resonate I suppose, which is of course good. And easier to build. Also, I think group delay is worse/different with size.
-Simon
I believe we really need a library we can all access. Years ago Bullock or somebody else worked out hundreds of alignments and misalignments and put them into tables. Just about every practical combination was covered.
I have even measured several of these alignments, including some of the extreme alignments. I always measured less ripple than predicted. Small lumps and not large lumps. This tends to undermine the validity of the theory. Still, it is invalid in good way. The extreme alignments perform better than predicted.
I have also found that most of the poor sounding sub systems have been because of poor summing and poor balance between upper range drivers and sub instead of the particular alignment or box size of sub. Don't be fooled by all the talk that crossovers below 200 Hz are not critical. They are. Poor summing and poor balance will radically degrade the sound.
I have measured some subs that show such an incredible rising frequency response that without really high quality instrumentation you could never design a properly summing crossover. Most of the commercial line level sub crossovers are just too limited and simple.
Good luck with the project, just get the crossover summing and balance correct.
I have even measured several of these alignments, including some of the extreme alignments. I always measured less ripple than predicted. Small lumps and not large lumps. This tends to undermine the validity of the theory. Still, it is invalid in good way. The extreme alignments perform better than predicted.
I have also found that most of the poor sounding sub systems have been because of poor summing and poor balance between upper range drivers and sub instead of the particular alignment or box size of sub. Don't be fooled by all the talk that crossovers below 200 Hz are not critical. They are. Poor summing and poor balance will radically degrade the sound.
I have measured some subs that show such an incredible rising frequency response that without really high quality instrumentation you could never design a properly summing crossover. Most of the commercial line level sub crossovers are just too limited and simple.
Good luck with the project, just get the crossover summing and balance correct.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.